Perhaps, naively, I found the quote from Slater at the end of the SLP piece the most interesting. He said: "I am unable to comment on this matter". He's a lawyer and as we all know, he uses words carefully. He did not say either "there's nothing to the story" or "no comment". He said he was unable (my emphasis) to comment on this matter. To me, that indicates that, first, there is indeed "a matter" he can't talk about and second, that there was something precluding him from talking about it. That must surely be that a deal is under discussion and the terms of the negotiations mean that he cannot talk about either those negotiations or disclose the prospective buyer's identity until such time that any transfer of interests is successfully concluded. (If the talks fail, I'd expect that he'll still be precluded from revealing any explicit information.)
If a seriously wealthy investor/company is looking at buying us out, moving us forward for promotion and looking at a mega million development on the peninsula, then why would they be so concerend about the odd million or two that has been 'hidden' somewherer within the books?
A couple of million here or there within the deal is nothing if the numbers being talked about are serious - unless they really need to screw every penny out of the deal.
Perhaps, naively, I found the quote from Slater at the end of the SLP piece the most interesting. He said: "I am unable to comment on this matter". He's a lawyer and as we all know, he uses words carefully. He did not say either "there's nothing to the story" or "no comment". He said he was unable (my emphasis) to comment on this matter. To me, that indicates that, first, there is indeed "a matter" he can't talk about and second, that there was something precluding him from talking about it. That must surely be that a deal is under discussion and the terms of the negotiations mean that he cannot talk about either those negotiations or disclose the prospective buyer's identity until such time that any transfer of interests is successfully concluded. (If the talks fail, I'd expect that he'll still be precluded from revealing any explicit information.)
But if he wanted to put this story out there to tempt in a buyer he would say that wouldn't he? It is the club that is feeding the news to the paper, not the other way round, they can put as much spin on it as they want.
Lets suppose it is a leaked story to tempt in a bidder and nothing comes of it. The club informs the SLP in a few weeks that "neither party could agree to terms" or "they seemed serious at the time but sadly did not have the funds"
The spin is endless if they want to play it that way.
I realise that, but we're talking about a relatively small company, with a relatively small turnover here. Besides half the employees have 'left' over the past year!
My opinion is that if there is no deal on the table and the story leaked to the SLP was to "draw a bidder in" we are approaching the time where the money being put into the club is running out or close to being stopped. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if the story was a "leak" things must be pretty desperate.
I fear administration and a 10 point deduction is looming on the horizon, which of course will mean league 1 football next season.
I don't myself think it is that bad, but would not claim to be sure of that. Your version of why the story is leaked, is indeed the one doing the rounds, but would you use some local newspaper to do that? It just isn't my experience of how things are done. If an ad agency is selling and has both WPP and Omnicom interested, the last thing it does is leak to the local magazine that WPP has offered x million. The most likely consequence would be that WPP would turn round and tell them to shove their deal.
Of course a football club is a bit different, but really how different, in this context?
Puzzled...
The timeline doesn't quite add up but, to my knowledge, due diligence continues so we wait and hope .....
Thanks for that important info.
Unlike the person you've pithily dismissed,no doubt you consider yourself one of '... us that get privileged information...' to quote one of your posts.
Nobody on here knows anything no matter how privileged their information.
6aSide with your 'Thanks for that important info.'
If it were genuine, my apologies
Absolutely genuine, and I'm horrified if I gave another impression.
I had a look at his six posts so far and they are clearly from someone who knows more than the rest of us and would like to give us some reason to be hopeful
Perhaps, naively, I found the quote from Slater at the end of the SLP piece the most interesting. He said: "I am unable to comment on this matter". He's a lawyer and as we all know, he uses words carefully. He did not say either "there's nothing to the story" or "no comment". He said he was unable (my emphasis) to comment on this matter. To me, that indicates that, first, there is indeed "a matter" he can't talk about and second, that there was something precluding him from talking about it. That must surely be that a deal is under discussion and the terms of the negotiations mean that he cannot talk about either those negotiations or disclose the prospective buyer's identity until such time that any transfer of interests is successfully concluded. (If the talks fail, I'd expect that he'll still be precluded from revealing any explicit information.)
But if he wanted to put this story out there to tempt in a buyer he would say that wouldn't he? It is the club that is feeding the news to the paper, not the other way round, they can put as much spin on it as they want.
Lets suppose it is a leaked story to tempt in a bidder and nothing comes of it. The club informs the SLP in a few weeks that "neither party could agree to terms" or "they seemed serious at the time but sadly did not have the funds"
The spin is endless if they want to play it that way.
The club may have put the story out to force an interested party to move, but I don't think they would to tempt a new unknown buyer, as in effect the message is that we already have one! I would also trust Airman to have some reliable knowledge and his suggestion was that there was more than one, presumuably 2 potential buyers. In that case it would make sense to plant the story to put some pressure on one or both of them.
I realise that, but we're talking about a relatively small company, with a relatively small turnover here. Besides half the employees have 'left' over the past year!
WPP is a massive company. They always do DD, even though in smaller markets they often buy businesses for a whole lot less than the 18m the SLP quoted. This despite the fact that DD is expensive for them. Businesses like advertising agencies have funny contracts, funny employee deals, doubtful future prospects, hidden debts.....
Others may know better than me, but I suspect that if a buyer was a publicly quoted company, they might be under a legal obligation to their shareholders to show they conducted DD.
If this were a story planted to draw out potential buyers you'd hardly plant it in the SLP.
Looks perfect to me, small local paper who appears to have become the mouth piece of the CAFC Board, not enough resource to do too much digging to unearth the real story?
One of the lager publications could have put a team of reporters on this and come back with the fact it is a non story.
If a seriously wealthy investor/company is looking at buying us out, moving us forward for promotion and looking at a mega million development on the peninsula, then why would they be so concerend about the odd million or two that has been 'hidden' somewherer within the books?
A couple of million here or there within the deal is nothing if the numbers being talked about are serious - unless they really need to screw every penny out of the deal.
People don't get to be that well off by not bothering about the odd million I could be wrong
My opinion is that if there is no deal on the table and the story leaked to the SLP was to "draw a bidder in" we are approaching the time where the money being put into the club is running out or close to being stopped. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if the story was a "leak" things must be pretty desperate.
I fear administration and a 10 point deduction is looming on the horizon, which of course will mean league 1 football next season.
I don't myself think it is that bad, but would not claim to be sure of that. Your version of why the story is leaked, is indeed the one doing the rounds, but would you use some local newspaper to do that? It just isn't my experience of how things are done. If an ad agency is selling and has both WPP and Omnicom interested, the last thing it does is leak to the local magazine that WPP has offered x million. The most likely consequence would be that WPP would turn round and tell them to shove their deal.
Of course a football club is a bit different, but really how different, in this context?
Puzzled...
The source is key to that question. If it was leaked by the club then perhaps they don't believe the current interested party will conclude and want to drive up competition. And/or, put together with Slater's previous comment one message might be that they've dropped their valuation by a third when their valuation might always have been £18m. Desperation is of course another possibility.
But that assumes TJ/MS have organised the leak. What if another board member was aware of negotiations to move away from the Valley and wanted to communicate that - I mean, the Peninsula was quite a nugget to be dropped in as a byline to a totally different story wasn't it? And indeed, in your scenario it might benefit Omnicom[cast] to leak it if they felt it would encourage WPP to drop out and increase their own leverage in the process. The source is key.
One possible solution might be to pin Airman down and torture him until he reveals what he knows.
If someone, say a football club for instance got a story printed in a paper that was deliberately a lie could they be done for libel if a third party had used that info to raise their bid for the club?
My opinion is that if there is no deal on the table and the story leaked to the SLP was to "draw a bidder in" we are approaching the time where the money being put into the club is running out or close to being stopped. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if the story was a "leak" things must be pretty desperate.
I fear administration and a 10 point deduction is looming on the horizon, which of course will mean league 1 football next season.
I don't myself think it is that bad, but would not claim to be sure of that. Your version of why the story is leaked, is indeed the one doing the rounds, but would you use some local newspaper to do that? It just isn't my experience of how things are done. If an ad agency is selling and has both WPP and Omnicom interested, the last thing it does is leak to the local magazine that WPP has offered x million. The most likely consequence would be that WPP would turn round and tell them to shove their deal.
Of course a football club is a bit different, but really how different, in this context?
Puzzled...
The source is key to that question. If it was leaked by the club then perhaps they don't believe the current interested party will conclude and want to drive up competition. And/or, put together with Slater's previous comment one message might be that they've dropped their valuation by a third when their valuation might always have been £18m. Desperation is of course another possibility.
But that assumes TJ/MS have organised the leak. What if another board member was aware of negotiations to move away from the Valley and wanted to communicate that - I mean, the Peninsula was quite a nugget to be dropped in as a byline to a totally different story wasn't it? And indeed, in your scenario it might benefit Omnicom[cast] to leak it if they felt it would encourage WPP to drop out and increase their own leverage in the process. The source is key.
One possible solution might be to pin Airman down and torture him until he reveals what he knows.
I realise that, but we're talking about a relatively small company, with a relatively small turnover here. Besides half the employees have 'left' over the past year!
WPP is a massive company. They always do DD, even though in smaller markets they often buy businesses for a whole lot less than the 18m the SLP quoted. This despite the fact that DD is expensive for them. Businesses like advertising agencies have funny contracts, funny employee deals, doubtful future prospects, hidden debts.....
Others may know better than me, but I suspect that if a buyer was a publicly quoted company, they might be under a legal obligation to their shareholders to show they conducted DD.
If someone, say a football club for instance got a story printed in a paper that was deliberately a lie could they be done for libel if a third party had used that info to raise their bid for the club?
If I had a pound for every time an estate agent or a used car dealer said to a potential buyer "you will need to move quick, we have another party interested" I could buy the club myself.
Say a deal has been agreed - new owners may want it announced on a home matchday for greater impact.
If the deal had been agreed, bar the ink drying I would have thought that the new owners may have stumped up for a couple of loans, to protect their investment against a very thin squad going into the December January period.
I suspect there is more to be completed, before the potential new owners are willing to part with any money.
I heard this time last week the deal was done and signed - obviously not and just shows how rumours are flying.
Say a deal has been agreed - new owners may want it announced on a home matchday for greater impact.
The change of ownership would have to be announced on the companies house website ASAP after the deal was done and the other party would most likely have to make a statement if they are a PLC or US/whatever equivalent
And in any case they will get more impact by having the press conference on a non-matchday when they can get the Sky cameras down and have the news pretty much to themselves rather than share with the PL scores and controversy.
Comments
He said: "I am unable to comment on this matter".
He's a lawyer and as we all know, he uses words carefully.
He did not say either "there's nothing to the story" or "no comment". He said he was unable (my emphasis) to comment on this matter. To me, that indicates that, first, there is indeed "a matter" he can't talk about and second, that there was something precluding him from talking about it.
That must surely be that a deal is under discussion and the terms of the negotiations mean that he cannot talk about either those negotiations or disclose the prospective buyer's identity until such time that any transfer of interests is successfully concluded. (If the talks fail, I'd expect that he'll still be precluded from revealing any explicit information.)
If it were genuine, my apologies
If a seriously wealthy investor/company is looking at buying us out, moving us forward for promotion and looking at a mega million development on the peninsula, then why would they be so concerend about the odd million or two that has been 'hidden' somewherer within the books?
A couple of million here or there within the deal is nothing if the numbers being talked about are serious - unless they really need to screw every penny out of the deal.
Lets suppose it is a leaked story to tempt in a bidder and nothing comes of it. The club informs the SLP in a few weeks that "neither party could agree to terms" or "they seemed serious at the time but sadly did not have the funds"
The spin is endless if they want to play it that way.
Material contracts
Customer information
Org structure
IP
Employees
Insurances
and stuff.......
Whom did I "dismiss" ? Absolutely genuine, and I'm horrified if I gave another impression.
I had a look at his six posts so far and they are clearly from someone who knows more than the rest of us and would like to give us some reason to be hopeful
Others may know better than me, but I suspect that if a buyer was a publicly quoted company, they might be under a legal obligation to their shareholders to show they conducted DD.
One of the lager publications could have put a team of reporters on this and come back with the fact it is a non story.
But that assumes TJ/MS have organised the leak. What if another board member was aware of negotiations to move away from the Valley and wanted to communicate that - I mean, the Peninsula was quite a nugget to be dropped in as a byline to a totally different story wasn't it? And indeed, in your scenario it might benefit Omnicom[cast] to leak it if they felt it would encourage WPP to drop out and increase their own leverage in the process. The source is key.
One possible solution might be to pin Airman down and torture him until he reveals what he knows.
Doesn't stop you from buying the company though.
I suspect there is more to be completed, before the potential new owners are willing to part with any money.
I heard this time last week the deal was done and signed - obviously not and just shows how rumours are flying.
And in any case they will get more impact by having the press conference on a non-matchday when they can get the Sky cameras down and have the news pretty much to themselves rather than share with the PL scores and controversy.